Joan Mullin v. Karen Balicki, 875 F.3d 140

Background

Robert Mullin, a New Jersey inmate with a history of depression and substance abuse, hanged himself less than a day after transfer to the Central Reception & Assignment Facility in January 2009.
His mother, Joan Mullin, sued under state tort and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 vulnerability-to-suicide theories, amending her complaint twice and adding Officer Dimler among others.
While motions to dismiss were pending, State Defendants produced April 2013 discovery containing a confidential Administrative Investigation Report stating that a previously undisclosed guard ("Officer X") allegedly refused Robert’s requests for psychiatric help and encouraged suicide.
Due to a clerical error, Mullin’s counsel failed to review the confidential disc containing that Report for ~10 months; by then the District Court had dismissed much of the operative complaint.
Mullin moved in August 2014 to file a Third Amended Complaint adding Officer X and others; the Magistrate Judge denied leave to amend based on undue delay and prejudice, and the District Court affirmed.
The Third Circuit vacated the denial of leave to amend and remanded, finding the Magistrate Judge abused his discretion in assessing delay, prejudice, and judicial-economy factors without properly weighing excusable clerical error and civil‑rights plaintiffs’ presumptive right to amend.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether leave to amend should be denied for undue delay after counsel failed to review confidential April 2013 discovery for ~10 months	Mullin: delay resulted from counsel’s inadvertent clerical error and late discovery; mistake can be excusable; plaintiff was unaware of the Report until counsel learned of it	State: ten-month delay was inexcusable; counsel had "clues" and opportunities to discover the missing disc and therefore delay is undue	Vacated denial — court held the Magistrate Judge erred by treating counsel’s single clerical mistake as per se inexcusable; district court must reassess whether delay was undue under proper excusable-neglect analysis
Whether amendment would prejudice defendants and justify denial	Mullin: defendants caused part of delay by withholding the confidential Report; they do not show concrete prejudice from amendment	State: amendment would force rewinding of extensive motion practice, require additional resources, and prejudice new and existing defendants	Vacated — court found defendants’ prejudice showing thin; many claimed harms would exist even if amendment had been timely; prejudice must be analyzed on remand
Whether judicial economy/effort already expended justified denying amendment	Mullin: prior work does not outweigh Rule 15’s liberal amendment policy in civil-rights cases, especially where new, material evidence emerged	State: nearly four years of litigation, multiple motions, and a lengthy dismissal opinion justify refusing to reopen the case	Vacated — appellate court found the Magistrate Judge overemphasized past effort and improperly used judicial economy as a sanction for prior litigation complexity
Whether claims against Officer X would be time‑barred or must "relate back" under Rule 15(c)	Mullin: claim against Officer X accrued when counsel received the April 2013 disclosures; therefore timely	State: argued relation-back issues might preclude new parties/claims	Held: appellate court concluded § 1983 claims against Officer X would be timely measured from receipt of April 2013 disclosures; relation-back need not be decided before reconsidering leave to amend

Key Cases Cited

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (sets Foman factors for denial of leave to amend)
Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (excusable neglect standard applied to attorney mistakes)
Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209 (3d Cir. 2017) (vulnerability-to-suicide § 1983 framework)
Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2006) (prejudice is the touchstone for denial of leave to amend)